alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020399EN.01003001.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Kaddour v Council

(Case T-510/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Damage to reputation - Determination of listing criteria)

(2020/C 399/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies and V. Wilkinson, Solicitors, R. Blakeley, Barrister, and M. Lester QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and T. Haas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/774 of 28 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 1), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Khaled Kaddour to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Khaled Kaddour to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.

---
# C_2021163EN.01000801.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2021 — Carmen Liaño Reig v Single Resolution Board (SRB)

(Case C-947/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution procedure - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 24 - Sale of business tool - Article 21 - Write-down and conversion of capital instruments - Tier 2 instruments - Action for annulment - Partial annulment - Not severable - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 163/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Carmen Liaño Reig (represented by: F. López Antón, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: A. Valavanidou, S. Branca and J. King, Agents, and by B. Meyring and T. Klupsch, Rechtsanwälte, and F.B. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, abogado)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Carmen Liaño Reig to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Carmen Liaño Reig to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>                         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
                                 FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
                                 FROM REGISTRANT'S FORM
                                 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                                 ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                                 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER>                     1000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                           282504
<SECURITIES>                     1204776
<RECEIVABLES>                    91697
<ALLOWANCES>                     5499
<INVENTORY>                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 1713870
<PP&E>                           142954
<DEPRECIATION>                   97774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   2142488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            213930
<BONDS>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<COMMON>                         230
<OTHER-SE>                       1724724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     2142488
<SALES>                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 443499
<CGS>                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    342161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  250650
<INCOME-TAX>                     101000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              131177
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     131177
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    5.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                    5.61
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Lapis Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry
Mund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






January
      12, 2009
                  /s/
      Harry MundHarry
      MundPrincipal
      Executive Officer
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. APHIS 81-35-038 | Issued June 2021

Questions and Answers: 

2021 European Cherry Fruit Fly 

Survey in New York 

What is the European cherry fruit fly (ECFF), and 

why is it a threat? 

The European cherry fruit fly (Rhagoletis cerasi L.) is a 

serious pest of cherries. The fly damages ripening fruit, 

causing it to rot and fall off the tree. In heavily infested 

areas, the fly can destroy all ripening cherries if left 

uncontrolled. The pest can spread to new areas through 

the transport of infested fresh cherries, soil, or fruit from 

host plants. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

first found European cherry fruit fly on traps hung along 

the Niagara River in New York’s Niagara County in 2017.

What is the ECFF survey?

The ECFF survey is a joint effort by USDA and the 

New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 

(NYS AGM) to look for this invasive pest in affected and 

at-risk areas. The goal of the survey is to determine where 

the insect is and monitor for potential spread. We survey 

for ECFF each year in the spring and summer.

Where will traps be set this year?

For the 2021 season, we are placing about 2,000 traps 

across the Western and Central New York regions, which 

are under quarantine for ECFF. We are also placing traps 

in New York counties outside the quarantine area that 

are most at risk for ECFF’s spread. 

What do the traps look like? 

We use the yellow panel trap, a rectangular cardboard 

trap coated on both sides with a mixture of a nontoxic 

glue and a food bait. The traps are about 9 inches long 

and hang vertically in trees. 

Do the traps really catch the fruit flies? 

The trap helps detect new infestations and monitor 

the insect’s spread. They are not meant to catch fruit 

flies as a way to reduce populations. 

What is the bait? 

The attractant is a food additive called ammonium 

acetate that lures fruit flies to the coated yellow trap.

How do the traps work? 

Adult fruit flies are attracted to the baited trap. If the 

flies land on the trap, they will get stuck in the nontoxic 

glue. USDA and NYS AGM service the traps regularly to 

replace the bait and collect insects.

If a trap is in my area, does that mean ECFF is there?

No. If you see a trap in your community, it does not mean 

ECFF is present. It just means we are looking for ECFF in 

your area. 

What were the results of the 2020 survey in New York?

Our 2020 survey in Niagara, Orleans, and Monroe 

counties found more than 1,100 ECFF in over 100 trap 

locations. These results helped guide decisions on trap 

placement for the 2021 survey.

How can I help?

Allow USDA and NYS AGM surveyors access to your 

property to place and check traps. If you have any 

questions, call the ECFF program office at 1-800-249-2363 

or email us at ppq.ecff@usda.gov. 

Learn more at www.aphis.usda.gov/hungrypests/ecff.
# C_2020320EN.01000301.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/3

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale per il Veneto — Italy) — Regione Veneto v HD

(Case C-468/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Historical vehicles - Non-uniform tax treatment within a Member State - Purely internal situation - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 320/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale per il Veneto

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Regione Veneto

Defendant: HD

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Commissione tributaria regionale del Veneto (Regional Tax Court for Veneto, Italy), by decision of 10 June 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
#### Edd ALBERT and Mary Kolarik, Plaintiffs in Error, v. William CARD, Executor of the Estate of Agnes Albert, deceased, and The Citizens National Bank of Anthony, Kansas, Trustee, Defendants in Error.

No. 37686.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 5, 1957.

Drennan & Eddy, Medford, for plaintiffs in error.

John M. Amick, Medford, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an attempted appeal by petition in error with case-made attached from the order and decree of the District Court sustaining the decree of distribution of the county court and determining the validity of a provision in the testatrix’ will devising property to a trustee to be used for certain charitable purposes. The court’s judgment was rendered August 27, 1956. The appellants’ motion for new trial was overruled September 21, 1956. The case-made was settled by the trial judge on December 21, 1956. It was not until January 30, T957, that the petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this court, some 39 *767dajfs after the case-made was settled. Our statute requires that proceedings ue commenced within 20 days from the date the case-made is settled. 12 O.S.1955 Supp. § 972. It is apparent that this court is without jurisdiction to review the appeal.

Although no motion to dismiss has been filed, it is the duty of this court to examine into its jurisdiction in each case, and if it is without jurisdiction, to dismiss the appeal. Video Independent Theatres, Inc. v. Walker, Okl., 308 P.2d 9S8.

Appeal dismissed.'

WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commissioner in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by Commissioner James H. Nease, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court for examination and report to the Court. Thereafter, upon report and consideration in conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court.
# C_2020378EN.01001401.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

(Case C-539/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Roaming on public mobile communications networks within the European Union - Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 - Article 6a - Article 6e(3) - Roaming provider required to automatically apply the regulated roaming tariff - Application to consumer having opted for a specific roaming tariff prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012)

(2020/C 378/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6a and 6e(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that, as from 15 June 2017, roaming service providers were required to apply automatically to all their customers the regulated roaming tariff referred to, inter alia, in Article 6a of that regulation, irrespective of whether those customers had previously opted for a regulated roaming tariff or for an alternative tariff, unless they had, before the deadline of 15 June 2017, expressly indicated their choice to benefit from such an alternative tariff, in accordance with the procedure laid down in that regard in the first subparagraph of Article 6e(3) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
# C_2021110EN.01000802.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale — Italy) — DB v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-481/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2003/6/EC - Article 14(3) - Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 - Article 30(1)(b) - Market abuse - Administrative sanctions of a criminal nature - Failure to cooperate with the competent authorities - Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to remain silent and to avoid self-incrimination)

(2021/C 110/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Interested party: Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(3) of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) and Article 30(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on market abuse (market abuse regulation) and repealing Directive 2003/6 and Commission Directives 2003/124/EC, 2003/125/EC and 2004/72/EC, read in the light of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as allowing Member States not to penalise natural persons who, in an investigation carried out in respect of them by the competent authority under that directive or that regulation, refuse to provide that authority with answers that are capable of establishing their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a criminal nature, or their criminal liability.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.1

ENCORIUM GROUP, INC

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Encorium Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Dr. Kai Lindevall, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/ Dr. Kai Lindevall, M.D., Ph.D.
|Dr. Kai Lindevall, M.D., Ph.D.    
|Chief Executive Officer           

March 28, 2008

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
#### Sandor Cenziper, Respondent, v Bernard Gross, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Bernard Gross appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated December 19, 1989, as, upon renewal, adhered to its determination contained in a prior order dated November 29, 1989, denying his motion to *227change the venue of the action from Kings County to Nassau County.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, all papers filed in the action and certified copies of all minutes and entries *(see,*CPLR 511 [d]).

We agree with the defendant’s contention that the court erroneously denied his motion to change the venue of the instant action from Kings County to Nassau County. Pursuant to CPLR 503 (a) the venue of an action is proper in the county in which any of the parties resided at the time of commencement *(see, e.g., Naples v Daubert Chem. Co.,*93 AD2d 745). The plaintiff is a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and thus the proper venue rests in either of the counties in which the respective defendants reside. The defendant Grace Luggage Co., Inc., resides in New York County, the county designated as its principal location in its certificate of incorporation. It is well settled that the sole residence of a domestic corporation for venue purposes is the county designated in its certificate of incorporation *(Saal v Claridge Hotel & Casino,*152 AD2d 631; *Papadakis v Command Bus Co.,*91 AD2d 657; *Bailey v New York Racing Assn.,*90 AD2d 710; *United Credit Corp. v Le Roy Adventures,*61 AD2d 742). Thus, New York County, rather than Kings County, would have been an appropriate venue for the plaintiff to commence this action against this defendant. The defendant Gross resides in Nassau County. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff’s choice of venue was improper and he has accordingly forfeited his right to select the venue of this action *(Saal v Claridge Hotel & Casino, supra; Papadakis v Command Bus Co., supra).*Accordingly, the motion of the defendant Gross to change the venue of this action to Nassau County, a proper venue, is granted. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       RECOGNIZING BRIANNA STRAUB

 Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the 
opportunity to express my appreciation to Brianna Straub for her hard 
work as an intern in my Sheridan office. I recognize her efforts and 
contributions to my office as well as to the State of Wyoming.
  Brianna is a native of Kaycee, WY and a graduate of Kaycee High 
School. She currently attends the University of Wyoming, where she is 
majoring in communications. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, 
which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of 
her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several 
months.
  I thank Brianna for the dedication she has shown while working for me 
and my staff. It was a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know 
she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I 
wish her all my best on her next journey.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

          CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of E Com Ventures,  Inc. (the "Company")
of Form 10-Q for the period  ending July 30,  2005 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Michael W. Katz,
Chief Executive  Officer and President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.    The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
      Company.


                                    By: /S/ Michael W. Katz
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael W. Katz
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        September 2, 2005